Full Frame is More Economical Than You Think

crashpc · Jun 10, 2015

wombat661 said:
This topic was discussed before. Since that time, I did a more thorough study at least on the Nikon line of DSLR to see if the reasoning is truly valid. In the previous thread, people got very offended at the suggestion that full frame cameras can be as economical as APSC, and with the same weight.

Understandably so if you have invested heavily into either system. And some were upset at the misleading title. Again, understandable with all the mirrorless shrills riling up the members, tensions are high. So will try to stick to the facts:

Full frame cameras are expensive. But, because of equivalence, you can get the same light gathering ability and Bokeh with a slower and more economical lens. Just as with mirrorless, you are trying to use computing power to overcome mechanical complexity of the mirror, with full frame sensor size, you are trying to use a larger sensor area to overcome the need for larger and more expensive lens. Sensor cost has come down sufficiently enough for full frame to compete with larger lens just as mirrorless has made gains in trying to catch up to DSLR.

So, I present the cost difference between full frame camera and APSC camera with as equivalent lens as possible.

Cost of APSC vs Full Frame with Equivalent Lens. Blue=APSC, Red=Full Frame

A quick inspection will show that the cost difference between APSC and full frame is not that much. Sometimes one is more, other times less.

What about weight?

Weight of APSC Compared with Full Frame with Equivalent Lens

Quick inspection shows that the weight difference is really not that different either. Only exception is with the large 400mm and 600mm lens.

For reference, here is the lens f-stop equivalence:

Equivalent Light Gathering Ability

Essentially, with the full frame camera, you will be using a higher f-stop lens and corresponding higher ISO. But because of the larger sensor area, the noise even with the higher ISO will be about the same, so picture quality is similar. Even with depth of field. You can use a higher f-stop on full frame and get the same depth of field.

Conclusion:

If you are considering getting either the Nikon D5500 or D7200 APSC camera, seriously consider the D610 and D750 full frame camera. Other than main difference of slower max shutter speed of 1/4000 instead of 1/8000, price difference is not much as soon as you move away from the kit lens.

With Sony and Fujifilm mirrorless, the story is similar as well. Suspect the story will be similar with Canon. A volunteer can check into that.

I think this is truly interesting how technology has changed the conventional thinking. I would definitely start with FF if I were starting today. Comments? Objections?

--
Useful summary of Digital Cameras:
http://benmlee.com/Digital_Camera/Digital_Camera.htm

Let me know how much does it take to outclass EOS M3 with 11-22mm in corner sharpness by FF system. Errrrrr 4x-10x more?

sportyaccordy · Jun 10, 2015

PK24X36NOW said:
sportyaccordy said:

MoreorLess said:

Pic Man said:

Your results seem skewed towards FF. You seem to have put the best glass on APS-C while just average glass on half the FF bodies. There is more to a lens than just its focal length and DOF properties.

For example the 70-200 F4 is a better lens that the 70-300 f4-5.6. The 17-55 f2.8 is better than the 24-85 f3.5-45, not to mention the constant apertures. And what 35mm f1.4 lens are you using on the APS-C camera, the nikon 35mm 1.4 or sigma 35mm f1.4? Both are better than the nikon 50mm 1.8. If you're being economical you wouldn't buy the most expensive lenses for APS-C you'd buy either 3rd party or lenses with a slightly slower aperture.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hen3ry · Jun 10, 2015

…and going in to bat for FF, but I will stick with my much more compact and lighter M43 outfit.

Ned Fleming · Jun 10, 2015

Full-frame gear is cheap. I keep a complete set (cameras and lenses) at home, another at work, and another in the trunk of my Bentley. Problem solved.

When a new model comes out, I pitch the old ones, as this gear is essentially disposable. I don't know how much equipment I've tossed off the bridge between uptown and downtown.

Keep shooting!

wombat661 · Jun 10, 2015

Dennis said:
You illustrate some examples that show that in some cases, FF might be less expensive than people expect, relative to APS-C.

However, as other people have already mentioned, your examples are not necessarily typical. How many APS-C users have a 35/1.4 instead of the sharp, affordable 35/1.8 ?

Another point is that you have to consider someone's reason for considering FF. If it's to exploit the larger sensor in low light, then they're not buying just to have "equivalent". (If it's for larger prints, they're not buying to use consumer grade zooms).

It's always going to boil down to a personal evaluation.

Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Nikon has the 35mm f1.8 for about $200. That would be equivalent to FF 50mm f2.8. You would save money, but at the cost of lower performance. Not sure what to do with that comparison other than to say the last bit of performance always cost the most money. The 35mm lens is a good example. The f1.8 is cheap, but f1.4 is very expensive. Same with the 85mm. The f1.8 is much less than the f1.4.

You will be paying more money to get down to f1.4 whether is for FF or APSC.

wombat661 · Jun 10, 2015

The Soul Hunter said:
There are too many assumptions in the OP for it to have any relevance. Obviously the primary assumption is that everyone uses their lenses wide open all the time, and that thinner depth of field is the most important determining factor.
I believe more photographers struggle with insufficient depth of field, and in this, a smaller format gives an advantage.

The underlying assumption is if two camera systems are in front of you for free as a gift, you would pick the FF over the APSC, and you would pick the faster lens over a slower lens.

Is fair to say most people would pick the FF over the APSC, and the faster lens over the slower lens. If you have a fast lens, you can always step down. You will have to use higher ISO, but noise will be the same FF sensor has better light gathering ability. Higher ISO will result in less dynamic range, but as long as you don't go crazy, is not that much.

ultimitsu · Jun 10, 2015

tkbslc said:
You multiple poor assumptions. The biggest one being that everyone demands the fastest FF equivalent possible.

That has to be the basis of comparison. the question is, if you wanted FF + F1.8 performance, is it cheaper to stick with APS-C. You cannot compare APS-C against non-existant FF.

tkbslc said:
The other glaring one is that the slower and cheaper FF lens is the same quality as the faster one on APS-C, just because the apertures are "equivalent".

Correct. this assumption is actually favours APS-C, because FF with slower aperture generally produce better image than APS-C with faster lenses. slower lenses tend to be sharper wide open, less CA, less vignetting, lighter and smaller.

ultimitsu · Jun 10, 2015

wombat661 said:
Conclusion:

If you are considering getting either the Nikon D5500 or D7200 APSC camera, seriously consider the D610 and D750 full frame camera. Other than main difference of slower max shutter speed of 1/4000 instead of 1/8000, price difference is not much as soon as you move away from the kit lens.

The biggest problem with your chart is that you are comparing one body and one lens every time.

In reality no one buy a FF body just to use with one mediocre lens. The cost appeal of FF is that after the first lens you break even, after the second lens you are slightly ahead, after the third lens you are significantly ahead. For example for a long time I had a 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 24-85 with D600, the whole set up cost me 2700 USD. D7100 + 35/1.4 + 55.1.4 + 17-55 would cost about twice that, if not more.

ultimitsu · Jun 10, 2015

Pic Man said:
For example the 70-200 F4 is a better lens that the 70-300 f4-5.6.

It is, but it is also 3 times the price.

Pic Man said:
The 17-55 f2.8 is better than the 24-85 f3.5-45

Not really. FF + 2485VR produces better image than APSC + 17-55 and has VR.

Pic Man said:
not to mention the constant apertures.

But constant aperture works against you. For example, the 70-200 v 70-300 comparison. at 300 end the apertures are equivalent, but at the 70 end the APS-C is a lot slower.

Pic Man said:
And what 35mm f1.4 lens are you using on the APS-C camera, the nikon 35mm 1.4 or sigma 35mm f1.4? Both are better than the nikon 50mm 1.8.

Not really. the sigma is slightly better IQ wise but much less consistent in AF. The Nikon 35/1.4 on APS-C is sounded beaten by the lowly 50/1.8 on FF.

Sigma has is better in edge resolution, same in centre. How often do you need edge resolution when shooting 50 wide open?

Sigma's biggest problem is overrated transmission, it really is T1.8 compared to the 50 at T2.0. this means to as far as transmission goes, the sigma on APS-C is like a F2.5 or 2.7 on FF

The Nikon 35/1.4 has horrid CA wide open.

Pic Man said:
If you're being economical you wouldn't buy the most expensive lenses for APS-C you'd buy either 3rd party or lenses with a slightly slower aperture.

That is besides the point and incorrect. Many many enthusiasts buy expensive lenses to use on APS-C, just see how well Canon and Nikon sold their 17-55/2.8. If they dont sell they would have been discontinued long ago.

Pic Man · Jun 11, 2015

ultimitsu said:
That is besides the point and incorrect. Many many enthusiasts buy expensive lenses to use on APS-C, just see how well Canon and Nikon sold their 17-55/2.8. If they dont sell they would have been discontinued long ago.

I said if you're being economical you wouldn't buy the most expensive lenses for APS-C. I didn't say people don't buy the most expensive lenses for APS-C. And as the thread is talking about how economical it is to go FF, I don't think it's beside the point.

J A C S · Jun 11, 2015

tkbslc said:
The other glaring one is that the slower and cheaper FF lens is the same quality as the faster one on APS-C, just because the apertures are "equivalent".

That is a big assumption, indeed because the cheaper and slower FF lens on FF would be better most of the time. $125 (left) vs. $1,400 (right), almost equivalent (the FF has to be stopped a bit more).

Dennis · Jun 11, 2015

wombat661 said:
Nikon has the 35mm f1.8 for about $200. That would be equivalent to FF 50mm f2.8. You would save money, but at the cost of lower performance.

Not "would" save money, but "do" save money, as in ... I bet that most APS-C owners who use a 35mm prime use the 35/1.8, so the comparison involving an f/1.4 lens is irrelevant.

wombat661 said:
You will be paying more money to get down to f1.4 whether is for FF or APSC.

Agreed. But if you're trying to convince people that FF is more affordable than they might think, you should compare to the APS-C systems that they're using, not more expensive systems. (Which gets to my final point, that everyone ultimately has to figure this out for his/herself).

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

OceanFroggie · Jun 11, 2015

wombat661 said:
The underlying assumption is if two camera systems are in front of you for free as a gift, you would pick the FF over the APSC, and you would pick the faster lens over a slower lens.

Not necessarily. If they were free I would pick APSC because the system is smaller, lighter, has longer reach and lenses cost less. The IQ is good enough and eons better than the SLR film I used for decades.

wombat661 said:
Is fair to say most people would pick the FF over the APSC, and the faster lens over the slower lens. If you have a fast lens, you can always step down.

Again with staggering low light ISO capability nowadays compared to yesteryear slower lenses may be fast enough for many. Who needs to hulk around a large heavy f2.8 70-200 for casual use nowadays.

wombat661 said:
You will have to use higher ISO, but noise will be the same FF sensor has better light gathering ability. Higher ISO will result in less dynamic range, but as long as you don't go crazy, is not that much.

Personally I find FF and even APSC just too large, heavy and bulky considering the convenience and good enough performance of smaller more portable systems. Carrying around black hulks of gear seems merely a legacy to the past - a past I was part of but technology has moved on.

Less can be more, and 'enough' can be more useable.

sportyaccordy · Jun 11, 2015

Dennis said:
wombat661 said:

Nikon has the 35mm f1.8 for about $200. That would be equivalent to FF 50mm f2.8. You would save money, but at the cost of lower performance.

Click to expand...

Not "would" save money, but "do" save money, as in ... I bet that most APS-C owners who use a 35mm prime use the 35/1.8, so the comparison involving an f/1.4 lens is irrelevant.

Dennis said:

You will be paying more money to get down to f1.4 whether is for FF or APSC.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But if you're trying to convince people that FF is more affordable than they might think, you should compare to the APS-C systems that they're using, not more expensive systems. (Which gets to my final point, that everyone ultimately has to figure this out for his/herself).

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

I think the "what people use" angle is a just a convenient diversion. To get FF equivalent glass on an APS-C you will have to spend a ton more money, period. If you shoot wide open a lot, will buy a few lenses and like the shallow DoF look FF is definitely cheaper.

Dennis · Jun 11, 2015

sportyaccordy said:
Dennis said:

wombat661 said:

Nikon has the 35mm f1.8 for about $200. That would be equivalent to FF 50mm f2.8. You would save money, but at the cost of lower performance.

Click to expand...

Not "would" save money, but "do" save money, as in ... I bet that most APS-C owners who use a 35mm prime use the 35/1.8, so the comparison involving an f/1.4 lens is irrelevant.

sportyaccordy said:

You will be paying more money to get down to f1.4 whether is for FF or APSC.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But if you're trying to convince people that FF is more affordable than they might think, you should compare to the APS-C systems that they're using, not more expensive systems. (Which gets to my final point, that everyone ultimately has to figure this out for his/herself).

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

I think the "what people use" angle is a just a convenient diversion. To get FF equivalent glass on an APS-C you will have to spend a ton more money, period.

Wait ... you're trying to convince people that FF is affordable, and it's a "diversion" to compare what they actually use ?

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

sportyaccordy · Jun 11, 2015

Dennis said:
sportyaccordy said:

Dennis said:

wombat661 said:

Nikon has the 35mm f1.8 for about $200. That would be equivalent to FF 50mm f2.8. You would save money, but at the cost of lower performance.

Click to expand...

Not "would" save money, but "do" save money, as in ... I bet that most APS-C owners who use a 35mm prime use the 35/1.8, so the comparison involving an f/1.4 lens is irrelevant.

Dennis said:

You will be paying more money to get down to f1.4 whether is for FF or APSC.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But if you're trying to convince people that FF is more affordable than they might think, you should compare to the APS-C systems that they're using, not more expensive systems. (Which gets to my final point, that everyone ultimately has to figure this out for his/herself).

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

I think the "what people use" angle is a just a convenient diversion. To get FF equivalent glass on an APS-C you will have to spend a ton more money, period.

Click to expand...

Wait ... you're trying to convince people that FF is affordable, and it's a "diversion" to compare what they actually use ?

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

No, I'm saying that if you shoot in a way that favors the advantages of FF, it's cheaper to get an FF camera.

Most APS-C shooters get the 35/1.8 because it's what they can afford and it's pretty much the only standard APS-C prime for Nikon. If there were a 35/1.4 for $400 or $600 for APS-C only I think people would give it a look. So comparing the $200 35/1.8 DX to the $1500 35/1.4 FX seems a bit silly.

A more rational comparison would be a D7100 + 35 1.8 vs a D610 + 50 1.8. $300 more, you get a full stop more light and DoF control on the shallow end. But since most people buy smartphones I guess any DSLR comparison is pointless lol.

Dennis · Jun 11, 2015

sportyaccordy said:
Most APS-C shooters get the 35/1.8 because it's what they can afford and it's pretty much the only standard APS-C prime for Nikon. If there were a 35/1.4 for $400 or $600 for APS-C only I think people would give it a look. So comparing the $200 35/1.8 DX to the $1500 35/1.4 FX seems a bit silly.

That was my point, too

But then, if there were a cheaper 35/1.4, the FF comparison wouldn't look so good.

sportyaccordy said:
A more rational comparison would be a D7100 + 35 1.8 vs a D610 + 50 1.8. $300 more, you get a full stop more light and DoF control on the shallow end.

I'm seeing $900 versus $1500 for those bodies. Unless you meant the D7200 ... and then there are some body differences, but I agree, that's a reasonable comparison for a lot of people (just as the f/1.8 primes are plenty fast enough for most APS-C users, the D610 is enough camera for most APS-C users).

Anyway, it's a two-way street - not as cut & dried as the OP's comparisons, but definitely worth considering ... I picked up a Sony A6000 recently and plan to add a single prime to my couple of 4-year old lenses, but am unwilling to spend much on it, because the FF system is getting more and more attractive and a high end APS-C kit looking less and less attractive. I'll hopefully be able to get along fine with what I've got for another 5 years or so and then reevaluate my kit in light of what's on the market then.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

sportyaccordy · Jun 11, 2015

Dennis said:
Anyway, it's a two-way street - not as cut & dried as the OP's comparisons, but definitely worth considering ... I picked up a Sony A6000 recently and plan to add a single prime to my couple of 4-year old lenses, but am unwilling to spend much on it, because the FF system is getting more and more attractive and a high end APS-C kit looking less and less attractive. I'll hopefully be able to get along fine with what I've got for another 5 years or so and then reevaluate my kit in light of what's on the market then.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

A7RII pretty much threw all my plans out the window. I was going back and forth between the A7 and A6000... then somehow decided A7R would be the move... now I'm back down to the A7, since it's cheap used and should hold me over until the A7RII is under $1500 used (which will probably be in a year or two lol). I don't like to make repeated iterative purchases but it's tough when Sony's launch system is so iterative, with such huge jumps each time. What will the IIIs yield? Is there a lower end non IBIS FE body coming? Etc. etc.

rsn48 · Jun 11, 2015

I know, doesn't make sense, how can an item significantly more expensive save money other than quality issues, which in cameras is a non-issue. The answer is simple, you saved for your very expensive full frame camera so that when a new model comes out of that line of camera, yet even more expensive, you don't jump ship and purchase it. I'm very happy with my Canon 5D 2 even though there are better Canon full frames out there now, it does the job for me, I'm comfortable using it and making adjustments.

When I was in the Rebel scene (still own them and use them) I bought a new camera much more frequently. So I have discovered spending lots slows down the upgrading mentality.

ultimitsu · Jun 11, 2015

Pic Man said:
ultimitsu said:

That is besides the point and incorrect. Many many enthusiasts buy expensive lenses to use on APS-C, just see how well Canon and Nikon sold their 17-55/2.8. If they dont sell they would have been discontinued long ago.

Click to expand...

Pic Man said:
I said if you're being economical you wouldn't buy the most expensive lenses for APS-C. I didn't say people don't buy the most expensive lenses for APS-C. And as the thread is talking about how economical it is to go FF, I don't think it's beside the point.

Then you have fundamentally misunderstood the premises of the thread - it is not that FF is in fact a blanket economical solution, but rather, when you seek improved performance by getting better gear, FF is more economical (alternatively, more cost effectively) than some people may think. The only relevant comparison in this context is smaller format + high end lenses.

Full Frame is More Economical Than You Think

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts